2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
QAISER ABBAS Versus EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (C.D.), BHAKAKR and 6 others
| Citation | 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandial, J |
| Parties | QAISER ABBAS Versus EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (C.D.), BHAKAKR and 6 others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (QAISER ABBAS Versus EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (C.D.), BHAKAKR and 6 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Farooq Hassan Naqvi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Respondents in an earlier constitutional petition, were directed to decide representation of petitioner for appointment
Selection Committee decided that petitioner lacked necessary qualification
Said decision was challenged by petitioner in second constitutional petition in which said decision of Selection Committee was set aside and matter was remanded to authorities for appointment of petitioner on the ground that he had a vested right
Authorities finally passed impugned order to the effect that petitioner had neither requisite qualification nor authorities had power to condone the same
Petitioner, meanwhile had acquired requisite qualification which was brought to the notice of authorities but again no order was passed on that application
Authorities explained that, petitioner having acquired required qualification, he would be appointed when fresh posts would be advertised
Said explanation was not satisfactory and same would amount to defy the orders of High Court on technicalities
Authorities were directed by the High Court to do the needful within specified period in accordance with law. Misbah ul Islam, A.A.G. Muhammad Shahid Rana, D.D.O: Social Welfare. Maqsood ul Hassan, Supervisor Social Welfare. Muhammad Hanif on behalf of DG (S. W.) Lahore.
Judgment & Decree
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 15-10-2003 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.14350 of 2003 whereby the respondents were directed to decide the representation of the petitioner for appointment as SSW. On 13-12-2003 the respondent No.1 Selection Committee decided that the petitioner lacked the necessary qualification of possessing CCW certificate. This decision was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition 803 of 2004 in which the aforesaid decision of the Selection Committee dated 13-12-2003 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the respondents for appointment of the petitioner on the ground that he had a vested right. Finally the respondents passed the impugned order on 5-5-2005 wherein they stated that the petitioner has neither the requisite qualification and that the respondents do not have the power to condone the lack thereof.
2. In the meanwhile, the, petitioner had acquired the requisite qualification on 17-2-2005 which was brought to the notice of the respondents by the petitioner through his application dated 26-3-2005. Again no order has been passed on that application whereas the impugned order dated 5-5-2005 has been passed without considering that application or the petitioner's requisite qualification for the post.
3. Learned A.A.-G. submits that the respondents have no power to condone the lack of the petitioner's qualification, hence he was not appointed in the past. That the petitioner has acquired his new qualification in the year 2005 and he will be appointed when fresh posts are advertised. The foregoing explanation is not satisfactory and would amount of defying the orders of this Court on technicalities. The respondents are directed to do the needful within 4 weeks in accordance with law including the judgments of this Court mentioned above and to report the action taken to the D.R.(J) of this Court. Petition is allowed. H.B.T./Q-31/L Petition allowe